[News] CalgaryNEXT Announcement. New arena details emerge.

[combustiblefuel]

Finally decided to check out the website for this project. Not a fan of it sitting next to the river. In a flood plains area according to Calgary.ca
http://www.calgary.ca/PDA/pd/Pages/F...lain-maps.aspx

[MrMastodonFarm]

Originally Posted by Tinordi

Where did I say that? My point is owning all the costs of an asset while receiving no revenue from the asset is a bad deal not a good deal.

People here are piping up as if it's a good thing.

But no I won't run the numbers for you, just use your critical faculties to work out if this is actually a good deal.

"I don't want to do my homework, mommy you do it for me "

[MarkGio]

Originally Posted by Boxman

I grew up in Calgary in the 90s and moved away in the early 2000s, just when the oil boom started to get going. As far as I know the city and its residents did not consider themselves a new, opulent "World Class City" of concerts and sports events.

There's nothing wrong with the Saddledome. This issue will simmer, go away, and resurface in a couple of years, either when oil prices go back up, or when using the Saddledome is really no longer feasible.

If people want to watch hockey, they'll watch hockey. If you make your hockey marketing about your pretty stadium, shiny bathrooms and leather seats, then you'll have trouble sustaining ticket sales in the long run.

Better to have cheap tickets sold to fans who couldn't care less about how the stadium looks. The new stadium looks to me like it would be just as much fun as the old one. I think people in Calgary haven't changed - despite the what some say, we're still a bunch of tightwads that use what we have until it's no longer usable. This is deeply embedded in Calgary's DNA. We make do with what we have, and we should make do with the Saddledome.

I agree with your philosophy. But I disagree with your assessment on people.

Folks nowadays are princesses. They need new iphones, new cars, new jobs, and new houses. Look at the consumer debt in this country.

Edmontonians also complained that Rexall was run down. Yet people still go to concerts there in a heart beat (ie, Taylor Swift). It was brand new in the 70's, and in 40 years from now, the new arena will need an upgrade. History has shown that humans will consume as many resources as possible until it gets depleted.

[Jbo]

Originally Posted by The Yen Man

That attitude is pretty much why Calgary has been stuck with the POS McMahon Stadium for so long.

This is why we can't have nice things!

[Fire]

Originally Posted by stone hands

Im a STH and you can count me out on wanting my tax dollars to go this

As much as i hate spending 35+ nights a year in a crammed concourse because theres an f150 sitting between the bathrooms, ATMs and major concessions, nothing will sway that opinion

The Flames owners won't be willing to stay in the Saddledome forever and I doubt they will eventually decide to pay for a $900 million complex all by themselves. Eventually the Saddledome will be a money losing arena for the Flames and after that point it won't be long before the team would be up for sale. Maybe local buyers buy them and maybe not.

[Hackey]

Originally Posted by MrMastodonFarm

If that presentation insulted you in anyway you might pray tonight your thin skin can be repaired.

Pray tonight your thin skin can be repaired? LOL. You might want to work on some better insults after your shift is over. If your gonna spend the time trying to insult me rather than discuss what I actually wrote at least make it better than that.

[Vinny01]

Not a fan of ownership only offering $200M of a $900M project. With how long this took to unveil to the public it is disappointing. I think we are years away from this getting the go ahead and not nearly as optimistic as I once was. Oilers will be playing in their new building for 5 years before Calgary gets theirs.

I personally don't care too much for the field house. It seems pretty cool but as an indoor facility I will go to even less Stamps games. Drinking in the sun on a warm July-September afternoon is the only reason I go watch that second rate league.

[Robbob]

Originally Posted by combustiblefuel

Finally decided to check out the website for this project. Not a fan of it sitting next to the river. In a flood plains area according to Calgary.ca
http://www.calgary.ca/PDA/pd/Pages/F...lain-maps.aspx

They showed the map at the presentation and it was asked. This location is not on the flood plain. In the last flood it wasn't flooded.

[MrMastodonFarm]

Originally Posted by Hackey

Clearly wasn't being serious. Clearly you didn't understand. Thank you for your service though.

Yikes.

[Cappy]

Originally Posted by Fire

The Flames owners won't be willing to stay in the Saddledome forever and I doubt they will eventually decide to pay for a $900 million complex all by themselves. Eventually the Saddledome will be a money losing arena for the Flames and after that point it won't be long before the team would be up for sale. Maybe local buyers buy them and maybe not.

Then they can build a similar arena to Edmonton (est. at roughly 500 million). 200 million from the team, 250 from the Ticket levy. Almost there!

[FBI]

Originally Posted by Iggy City

Hahaha wow. We'd still be living in the stone age if that statement was followed.

I think the problem is that the Boxman needs to think outside the.. Ok I'll show myself out.

[Hackey]

Originally Posted by MrMastodonFarm

Yikes.

It's the CFL. As Vinny said "a second rate league." Pretty obvious that a state of the art facility isn't going to be built here like a new NFL stadium in California. Only thing yikes is that you were the only person that didn't put that together and would rather try and start an arguement than just appreciate a pretty impressive design.

[MrMastodonFarm]

Originally Posted by combustiblefuel

Finally decided to check out the website for this project. Not a fan of it sitting next to the river. In a flood plains area according to Calgary.ca
http://www.calgary.ca/PDA/pd/Pages/F...lain-maps.aspx

Where are you looking?

According to that link it's not in a flood plain and that area didn't flood in 2013 as well.

[MrMastodonFarm]

Originally Posted by Hackey

It's the CFL. As Vinny said "a second rate league." Pretty obvious that a state of the art facility isn't going to be built here like a new NFL stadium in California. Only thing yikes is that you were the only person that didn't put that together and would rather try and start an arguement than just appreciate a pretty impressive design.

There's that thin skin again.

[GirlySports]

Get digging, I love it all! and The city owns it? Great deal for Calgary are the same thing. So that's over 50% support

[Looch City]

Should just save the money for more rings and bridges and build this instead:

Spoiler!

[Robbob]

The thing is the field house will be built anyways. It is just currently unfunded by the city, but it will get built eventually. I would be interested to see what the initial field house RFP looked like (size and amenities) compared to what is being offered in this complex. I know King mentioned the field house in this complex checked all the boxes in the original RFP. I just think the city is getting more value in the field house if it is part of the complex for that 200M. In that case I think it is a wash.

The remediation cost is the wildcard in all of this.

[RougeUnderoos]

Originally Posted by GirlySports

Get digging, I love it all! and The city owns it? Great deal for Calgary are the same thing. So that's over 50% support

I'm a little stumped by the enthusiasm for "the city owns it" angle.

Like, umm, why wouldn't they? The city owns the land and going by today's announcement they/we'll be paying for something like 80% of this, if not more.

Who else would own it?

[Cappy]

Originally Posted by Robbob

The thing is the field house will be built anyways. It is just currently unfunded by the city, but it will get built eventually. I would be interested to see what the initial field house RFP looked like (size and amenities) compared to what is being offered in this complex. I know King mentioned the field house in this complex checked all the boxes in the original RFP. I just think the city is getting more value in the field house if it is part of the complex for that 200M. In that case I think it is a wash.

The remediation cost is the wildcard in all of this.

That hasn't really been a huge issue. In the article last week they talked about the city paying 200 for the field house but also said the Flames would foot the bill for the rest. That was ok with most people (although many rightly raised the concern of the fact that it isnt funded and wants vs needs etc.)

The issue now is the city is contributing alot more for the project than the original project.

[D as in David]

Count me in as someone who was really looking forward to this announcement but came away unimpressed. Trying not to be overly negative at this point but that is a terribly uninspired design. I know, I know, this isn't the final design but I honestly think they could have put together better drawings (they certainly had the time) as often with drawings there are fewer limitations in the conceptual stage. My fear is that KK and the owners already think that this is pretty transformational and all it needs are some final touches. Generally, I'm a pretty optimistic person so I will put these thoughts aside for now and hope that we will be blown away when the final design comes out. I've been pretty happy with the way architecture is advancing in Calgary (for eg. new Public Library and NMC) and am hoping that this new facility will follow along; especially for such a prominent site.

I was disappointed that there is no re-alignment of westbound Bow Trail. It will take a lot of imagination in the design to prevent that stretch North of the facility from becoming a barren wasteland. Would have liked that the facility open up to the river to encourage more activity there.

I also don't like how the facility creates a large barrier between the new live/work area and the rest of downtown. As an earlier poster said, commercial (office) development brings more to the city's coffers than residential but I doubt rents will be that high for an area so far out of the core. As well, there is still a lot of developable land in the core and the beltline that developers would likely choose for the projects than for something relatively far away from the core.

On the residential side, I sure wouldn't mind living near the facility but I would think twice about living next to it. A large, concrete facility like this with limited interaction with the street isn't as attractive for a neighbour as some might like to think.

Left out of the presentation is whether the $250M for the CRL included upgrades to the surrounding infrastructure (roads, utilities) to accommodate the future commercial and residential development. This is where the $'s went for the development of the East Village - I'm assuming this would also be the case in the West Village. How much more money is required?

When it comes to the stadium/fieldhouse, I'm okay with enclosed roof, especially if it is translucent. A retractable roof would be ideal but I think we have to realize that a new open air football/soccer stadium isn't economically feasible with the limited number of events that would be held there. Haven't seen it mentioned in this thread yet but with the E-W alignment of the stadium, a translucent roof is going to cause some difficulty with the Sun - hope the architects are thinking about that one.

Finally, during KK's presentation, I couldn't help from thinking that I would have preferred Treliving giving this presentation instead; so much more thoughtful and polished in his delivery than King. It wasn't the only thing I didn't like about his presentation style but I, too, wasn't impressed with his response to Francis' question.